Gaspar v. Lawnpro, Inc.
372 S.W.3d 754
Tex. App.2012Background
- Appellants Rafael Gaspar, Arturo Gaspar, Javier Rodriguez, Guillermo Gaspar, Antonio Gaspar, and Carmen Gaspar sue Lawnpro, Inc. and Kirk E. Henton for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.
- Plaintiffs allege they worked in June 2009, were paid with checks later dishonored for insufficient funds, and were promised cash instead.
- For two months, defendants allegedly paid with worthless checks despite promises to make good the pay.
- Defendants moved for no-evidence summary judgment under Rule 166a(i), arguing lack of evidence for each element of each claim.
- Plaintiffs responded with affidavits and Lawnpro/pay statements indicating a working relationship and unpaid or dishonored payments; defendants filed an amended no-evidence motion and raised hearsay objections.
- The trial court granted the no-evidence motion; the court of appeals reverses and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the affidavits create a genuine issue of material fact to defeat the no-evidence motion? | Gaspar argues affidavits show breach, fraud, and damages. | Lawnpro/Henton contend there is no supportive evidence for essential elements. | Yes; evidence defeats motion on breach, fraud, and related claims. |
| Was the trial court correct to grant a no-evidence summary judgment based on deficient argument and objections? | Gaspar asserts the motion failed to specify facts and relied on elements rather than evidence. | Lawnpro/Henton maintain no evidence for the elements. | No; court erred in granting the no-evidence motion; reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (no-evidence standard applies; review favors nonmovant)
- Stewart v. Sanmina Tex., L.P., 156 S.W.3d 198 (Tex.App. Dallas 2005) (better practice for ruling on objections to summarize judgment)
- S & I Mgmt., Inc. v. Choi, 331 S.W.3d 849 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011) (hearsay objections must be ruled to be preserved)
- Esty v. Beal Bank S.S.B., 298 S.W.3d 280 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (breach of contract elements defined; implied terms possible)
- Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (implied contract terms and relationships in performance disputes)